nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Mens Rights Thread

Woodward

Ok I'm pretty new here but I havent been able to find a thread on this topic

Are any of you here involved in the Mens Rights or Masculinist Movements? Is there any organised male orientated rights associations in Ireland except for Fathers Rights?

Find more posts tagged with

jane ruffino

Quick Links

Comments

masculinist

Sn@kebite wrote: »

I think moderate feminists have an awful time defending their movements due to the damage the radical feminists are doing.

My view would be theres no such thing as a moderate feminist in the West because theres nothing left for women to achieve in the west having supremacy in many aspects of the law. If shes truly an egalitarian, she will take an interest in men's rights but thats just not happening, despite copious lip service. Feminist goals are about aggressively seizing as much tax money for gynocentric and Marxist goals as possible. Its a special interest lobby group and nothing more.
Theres nothing left these days in the west for someone who believes in equality to achieve for women. Theres however plenty for men to look for where their rights are lacking. ''Moderate'' or any other shade of self proclaimed feminist arent representing the rights of men either.

Middle Man

masculinist wrote: »

My view would be theres no such thing as a moderate feminist in the West because theres nothing left for women to achieve in the west having supremacy in many aspects of the law. If shes truly an egalitarian, she will take an interest in men's rights but thats just not happening, despite copious lip service. Feminist goals are about aggressively seizing as much tax money for gynocentric and Marxist goals as possible. Its a special interest lobby group and nothing more.
Theres nothing left these days in the west for someone who believes in equality to achieve for women. Theres however plenty for men to look for where their rights are lacking. ''Moderate'' or any other shade of self proclaimed feminist arent representing the rights of men either.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but I'm left wing myself and I would not put modern feminism in the same sphere as marxism. Some women just want to use men for their own convenience and gratification and seem more and more demanding like spoiled children - marxism in my mind is about collective effort on the part of all humans and fair distribution of wealth. Some radical feminists seem so man hating that it would fit well with fascism - take for example the concept of boots walking on men.

Pawwed Rig

There is still discrimination against women in this country regardless what is in legislation. Mothers who want to continue working, for example, have a hard time when compared to men/younger women (State jobs aside).

iptba

The Bill will increase the penalty for incest by a female up to life imprisonment. This is in line with the existing penalty for incest by a male.

From:

Sexual consent legislation to be submitted for Cabinet approval
Tánaiste seeks to define consent in law for the first time and end legal anomaly

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sexual-consent-legislation-to-be-submitted-for-cabinet-approval-1.2948315

I don't know how this definition of consent will work with regard to drinking and the like.

blue note

Was there confusion in law (or in general) about the ability of someone to consent when asleep or unconscious? I know we're sometimes lead to believe there is, but I don't think I've ever met someone who thought that an unconscious person was able to give consent.

And what was the supreme court ruling referred to in the article that has lead to this review? Sorry, I couldn't find what it could have been.

Sn@kebite

masculinist wrote: »

My view would be theres no such thing as a moderate feminist in the West because theres nothing left for women to achieve in the west having supremacy in many aspects of the law. If shes truly an egalitarian, she will take an interest in men's rights but thats just not happening, despite copious lip service. Feminist goals are about aggressively seizing as much tax money for gynocentric and Marxist goals as possible. Its a special interest lobby group and nothing more.
Theres nothing left these days in the west for someone who believes in equality to achieve for women. Theres however plenty for men to look for where their rights are lacking. ''Moderate'' or any other shade of self proclaimed feminist arent representing the rights of men either.

It's a mix of issues I think. There are many social problems for both sexes. And yes men's issues or men's groups are a threat to feminism's monopoly over the funds resources. This imo is why the most sneering attitudes toward men's issue are middle-class, white feminists. (Or White Feminism as it may be referred to). They are the ones with the financial interests at risk of men's issues being funded.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

There is still discrimination against women in this country regardless what is in legislation. Mothers who want to continue working, for example, have a hard time when compared to men/younger women (State jobs aside).

Yes but this is also to do with men not being able to take parental leave (mostly socially) but also in Ireland if I'm not mistaken fathers do not have a legal right to take parental leave, it is an employers discretion. And also to do with the social valuing and trusting of motherhood more than fatherhood. (This might be what masculinist is referring to as men's issues.)

Gender roles being interlinked, but feminism focuses rather exclusively on women which is unrealistic. Gender roles/stereotypes need to be disconnected on both sides.

Now feminism will state vehemently that it is men's friend and wants the male gender role removed but then in domestic abuse theory it is (feminist theory) is built of the "Goldielocks and the three bears" scenario which in general is gender roles. A predator/prey dynamic. And female violence is written off as a female victim fighting back in self-defense not as a perpetrator. This contradicts gender roles being something feminists claim to wanting eradicated. The power and control part of domestic abuse theory (women do not use violence to assert dominance, control and power) is also flawed and limited by the existence of female child abusers which shows clearly women do abuse to assert control and express anger in terms of violence and are therefor capable of that psychology like men are.

These views lead to prejudices/stereotypes against male victims as he is classed as a perpetrator posing as a victim in order to trick the shelters and the law enforcement agencies. So a male victim could come forward as a victim and end up being arrested as a perpetrator.

We cannot pretend women do not benefit from this, because they absolutely do, and feminism in many ways is and influencing force behind these, as masculnists said, "gynocentric" views. Feminism knows it is wrong, how can it not know? It perpetuates these views in order to maintain a funding monopoly. if it acknowledges men need services, it knows it will need to share funds and will need to update thousands of feminist texts.

eviltwin

blue note wrote: »

Was there confusion in law (or in general) about the ability of someone to consent when asleep or unconscious? I know we're sometimes lead to believe there is, but I don't think I've ever met someone who thought that an unconscious person was able to give consent.

And what was the supreme court ruling referred to in the article that has lead to this review? Sorry, I couldn't find what it could have been.

You might want to tell George Hook and others like him that. Remember the case of the woman sexually abused for months by her boyfriend while she slept and Hooks comments that there was an 'implied consent' in relationships?

It's good to see laws being updated but I'm still dismayed rape of a male by a female continues to be ignored.

Sn@kebite

eviltwin wrote: »

It's good to see laws being updated but I'm still dismayed rape of a male by a female continues to be ignored.

Female on male rape does not fit into the power dynamic narratives. Because men hold more power/influence within the ruling system, many feminists might argue classing female on male sexual assault as "rape" dilutes the concept of rape being a "male privilege" or oppressor/oppressed dynamic. It elevates a male victim's experience to the same as that of a female victim's. It would most likely be argued it is not the same because it is a member of the dominant group being assaulted by a member of the submissive group. Or the oppressed woman assaulting her oppressor within a system built upon male power.

This then becomes conflicted. By stating the male is "not really" a victim of rape by the female it is firstly telling a victim how they should feel (which feminism is supposed to oppose) and secondly it is removing a male's agency to openly feel weak and vulnerable especially at the hands of a female which ironically reinforced gender roles, i.e men are not weak and women are not really dangerous.

goz83

eviltwin wrote: »

It's good to see laws being updated but I'm still dismayed rape of a male by a female continues to be ignored.

I think I already know the answer, but I find it very hard to get my mind around female on male rape. How can it be considered rape when for example;

A man holds a small yoga group. A woman stays behind after the class and flirts with the man. She then makes her move and proceeds to have sex with him. He doesn't want to have sex, but he does not say no. He lets her remove his shorts. He lets her have sex with him. He allows it to happen because he fears conflicts.

However, he must be aroused in order for the woman to have her way, so this in my mind is a contradiction. How can the man claim the woman raped him when he did not tell her he did not want to have sex. Has consent not been implied, even if he feels he was used/raped?

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote:

I don't know how this definition of consent will work with regard to drinking and the like.

I think that's a good discussion to have. Consent is the crux of a lot of these issues but I've found most people don't have a clue what they think consent is.

blue note wrote:

Was there confusion in law (or in general) about the ability of someone to consent when asleep or unconscious? I know we're sometimes lead to believe there is, but I don't think I've ever met someone who thought that an unconscious person was able to give consent.

I've asked about consent a few times on boards and the discussion doesn't go very far. It tends to be doing the lines of 'you know consent when you see it'.

One poster brought up an instance where they woke up a partner by going down on them, they brought it up as an example of how you don't always need consent (or consent doesn't always apply, I can't remember the exact purpose). I'd say having sex with an unconscious person without getting consent in advance us very shaky ground. If they felt violated and brought a case, I can't see how you'd have a leg to stand on.

You could agree prior consent by telling your partner that you'd like them to do stuff while you're unconscious but that's another story. That would fall under the normal agreements between consenting adults.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think that's a good discussion to have. Consent is the crux of a lot of these issues but I've found most people don't have a clue what they think consent is.

I've asked about consent a few times on boards and the discussion doesn't go very far. It tends to be doing the lines of 'you know consent when you see it'.

One poster brought up an instance where they woke up a partner by going down on them, they brought it up as an example of how you don't always need consent (or consent doesn't always apply, I can't remember the exact purpose). I'd say having sex with an unconscious person without getting consent in advance us very shaky ground. If they felt violated and brought a case, I can't see how you'd have a leg to stand on.

You could agree prior consent by telling your partner that you'd like them to do stuff while you're unconscious but that's another story. That would fall under the normal agreements between consenting adults.

its a nice way to be woken up , if you are in a relationship its autistic to have an agreement in place

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

its a nice way to be woken up , if you are in a relationship its autistic to have an agreement in place

I think autocorrect screwed you there. What did you mean by 'autistic'? Automatic?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think autocorrect screwed you there. What did you mean by 'autistic'? Automatic?

no autistic, Lacy Green style...Can I touch you there?...can I touch you there? can I touch you there? ....consent is sexy :pac:

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

no autistic, Lacy Green style...Can I touch you there?...can I touch you there? can I touch you there? ....consent is sexy

You've lost me. It's autistic to discuss consent in a relationship?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You've lost me. It's autistic to discuss consent in a relationship?

no but only in terms of having reasonable boundaries that any normal couple would understand implicitly and most likely would go through life without ever having to talk about it. Im sure some men and women do things that would be wrong that we would all agree on , using force or doing something to someone who is unconscious because of drugs or alcohol or something in which case there isn't much to discuss

[Deleted User]

goz83 wrote: »

I think I already know the answer, but I find it very hard to get my mind around female on male rape. How can it be considered rape when for example;

A man holds a small yoga group. A woman stays behind after the class and flirts with the man. She then makes her move and proceeds to have sex with him. He doesn't want to have sex, but he does not say no. He lets her remove his shorts. He lets her have sex with him. He allows it to happen because he fears conflicts.

However, he must be aroused in order for the woman to have her way, so this in my mind is a contradiction. How can the man claim the woman raped him when he did not tell her he did not want to have sex. Has consent not been implied, even if he feels he was used/raped?

So if a woman gets wet while being raped, its not rape?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

^^

And Ill take a cheap shot here but most radical feminists are oddballs and probably have rarely if ever been in normal relationships which is why they have such hyper sensitive and unrealistic notions about relationships

goz83

Deleted User wrote: »

So if a woman gets wet while being raped, its not rape?

That question sort of answers itself.

But in the example I gave above, has the man not consented by allowing it to happen. He could have just said no and there might not have been a problem with saying no. The woman might have just said "sorry, I thought you were interested" or something along those lines.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

goz83 wrote:

But in the example I gave above, has the man not consented by allowing it to happen. He could have just said no and there might not have been a problem with saying no. The woman might have just said "sorry, I thought you were interested" or something along those lines.

Sorry. I think I may have misinterpreted your post

silverharp

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

its a death cult by that reasoning, crash society without a plan B, no wonder Feminists only represent Feminists and why they get such derision now on the net.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

silverharp

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It would make sense, they are the cookies writing the courses and when taught their ideas aren't really up for discussion. Paglia brought it up that the more reasonable feminists were driven out of academia back in the early 80's. Thankfully I have never met a feminist in real life, its just something to prep the kids for on the off chance it picked up momentum this side of the pond. :pac:

Sleepy

goz83 wrote: »

However, he must be aroused in order for the woman to have her way, so this in my mind is a contradiction. How can the man claim the woman raped him when he did not tell her he did not want to have sex. Has consent not been implied, even if he feels he was used/raped?

Arousal is not a signifier of consent. Some of the prisoners in the concentration camps that were experimented on by Josef Mengele during the Holocaust were stimulated to ejaculation as part of those experiments. I'm sure they didn't consent to those actions.

El_Duderino 09

goz83 wrote:

This post had been deleted.

My understanding is that lots of people become aroused during rape. Arousal and consent aren't linked at all. Lots of people orgasm during rape (the obvious forced rape type) which often results in unusual conflicts such as guilt and makes it difficult to explain.

silverharp wrote:

no but only in terms of having reasonable boundaries that any normal couple would understand implicitly and most likely would go through life without ever having to talk about it. Im sure some men and women do things that would be wrong that we would all agree on , using force or doing something to someone who is unconscious because of drugs or alcohol or something in which case there isn't much to discuss

We all work out our relationship 'contracts' in one way or another and those contracts change as relationships change. As with any other agreement you can sit down and do it formally or do it off the cuff as the circumstance demands and fly by the seat of your pants. Most people do something in the middle.

Permabear wrote:

This post has been deleted.

It would depend on their relationship agreement. For example if it was normal to cuddle up when she's awake and cup her breast and go to sleep, then it's not a big leap to assume the same goes when she's asleep.

This isn't half as difficult as you're making out. There's no need to be melodramatic about it and jump to blanket ban on cuddling your partner.

Touching strangers without any kind of agreement carries a real potential for misunderstanding. That goes in any iart of life so why would sex be different?

goz83

Sleepy wrote: »

Arousal is not a signifier of consent. Some of the prisoners in the concentration camps that were experimented on by Josef Mengele during the Holocaust were stimulated to ejaculation as part of those experiments. I'm sure they didn't consent to those actions.

In that case, there may be a larger percentile of men who have been raped by women and don't do anything about it.....sweep it under the carpet mentality, because lets face it....it would be very difficult for a man to prove he was raped by a woman. It would not compute with most people.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We all work out our relationship 'contracts' in one way or another and those contracts change as relationships change. As with any other agreement you can sit down and do it formally or do it off the cuff as the circumstance demands and fly by the seat of your pants. Most people do something in the middle.

most people would go "contract" what are you on about?, most people learn what their partner likes or doesnt like in an organic way without trying to deconstruct it into something that requires a lawyer

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

most people would go "contract" what are you on about?, most people learn what their partner likes or doesnt like in an organic way without trying to deconstruct it into something that requires a lawyer

And when it goes wrong and there's a misunderstanding what do they do?

There's an old saying that "most people read a contract twice - the day they sign it and the day it goes wrong." If you don't discuss the 'contract' in the first place then you could be very confused when you find out it has gone wrong.

Yes most people work out their agreement organically very time. How does that work with strangers you only just met?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And when it goes wrong and there's a misunderstanding what do they do?

There's an old saying that "most people read a contract twice - the day they sign it and the day it goes wrong." If you don't discuss the 'contract' in the first place then you could be very confused when you find out it has gone wrong.

Yes most people work out their agreement organically very time. How does that work with strangers you only just met?

"go wrong" , you mean "will ya feck off Im trying to sleep" would normally cover it.

Now you are moving to strangers?, I picked you up on people in relationships, but in short the same but dialled down to baby steps, its not difficult and I am barely seeing an issue, don't do anything that would be perceived to be creepy which leaves plenty of room for spontaneity